Mr. Mojo

<a target=new href="http://www.nypost.com/seven/09082003/postopinion/opedcolumnists/5236.htm">NY Post - THE IRAQ EFFECT by By AMIR TAHERI - LINK</a>

September 8, 2003 -- THe conventional wisdom, at least in Europe, is that President Bush's hope of turning Iraq into a catalyst for democratization in the Arab world has already failed. Footage of the carnage from bombings is presented, along with almost daily sabotage operations, to back the claim that democratization is a forlorn cause in the Arab world. But is it?
It is too early to tell.

To be sure, Iraq has not been transformed into a democracy, and may need a generation or more to develop the institutions it needs. But the fact is that Iraqis now enjoy a measure of political freedom they did not know before.

Iraq is the only Arab country today where all political parties, from communist to conservative, operate freely. Visitors will be impressed by the openness of the political debate there, something not found anywhere else in the Arab world. Also, for the first time, Iraq has no political prisoners.

Almost 150 newspapers and magazine are now published there, offering a diversity not found in any other Arab country. One theme of these new publications is the need for democratization in the Arab world. This may be putting the cart before the horse. What Arabs, and Muslims in general, most urgently need is basic freedom, without which democracy cannot be built.

The impact of Iraq's liberation is already felt throughout the region.

* In Syria, President Bashar Assad has announced an end to 40 years of one-party rule by ordering the Arab Ba'ath Socialist Party to no longer "interfere in the affairs of the government." The party is planning a long-overdue national conference to amend its constitution and, among other things, drop the word "socialist" from its official title.


Assad has also liberated scores of political prisoners and promised to hold multiparty elections soon. In July, a petition signed by over 400 prominent Syrians offered a damning analysis of Ba'athist rule and called for political and economic reform. The fact that the signatories were not arrested, and that their demands were mentioned in the state-controlled media, amount to a retreat by Syrian despotism.

"What we need is a space of freedom in which to think and speak without fear," says a leading Syrian economist. "Bashar knows that if he does not create that space, many Syrians will immigrate to Iraq and be free under American rule."

* A similar view is expressed by Hussein Khomeini, a mid-ranking mullah and a grandson of the late Ayatollah Ruhallah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic in Iran.

"I decided to leave Iran and settle in Iraq where the Americans have created a space of freedom," Hussein Khomeini says. "The coming of freedom to Iraq will transform the Muslim world."

Hussein Khomeini is one of more than 200 Iranian mullahs who recently moved from Qom, the main centre of Iranian Shiism, to Najaf and Karbala, in central Iraq, to escape "the suffocating atmosphere of despotism in Iran."

* Saudi Arabia is also feeling the effects of Iraqi regime change. Last month King Fahd ordered the creation of a Center for National Dialogue where "issues of interest to the people would be debated without constraint." The center will be open to people from all religious communities, including hitherto marginalised Shi'ites. More importantly, the gender apartheid, prevalent in other Saudi institutions, will be waived to let women participate.

Encouraged by the current state of flux, Saudi women have organized several seminars in the past few weeks, in which they called for equal legal rights.

The Iraq effect has also been felt in the Saudi media. Newspapers now run stories and comments that were unthinkable last March. Words such as reform (Islahat), opening (infitah) and democracy (dimuqratiah) are appearing in the Saudi media for the first time.

* Both Kuwait and Jordan have just held general elections in which pro-reform candidates did well. The new Kuwaiti parliament is expected to extend the franchise to women and to over 100,000 people regarded as "stateless." In Jordan, the new parliament is expected to revise censorship laws and to relax rules regarding the formation of political parties.

* In Egypt, the state-controlled media are beginning to break taboos, including reporting President Hosni Mubarak's refusal to name a vice president, as required by the constitution, and to end the tradition of single-candidate presidential elections.

Some non-governmental organizations are also testing the waters by raising issues such as violence against women, street children and, above all, the state's suffocating presence in all walks of life.

* In a recent television appearance, Col. Muammar Khadafy (whose one-man rule has been in place since 1969) told astonished Libyans that he now regarded democracy as "the best system for mankind" and that he would soon unveil a package of reforms. These are expected to include a new Constitution to institutionalize his rule and provide for an elected national assembly.

Having just settled the Lockerbie affair, the Libyan despot is looking for new legitimacy on the international stage.

* Even in remote Algeria and Morocco, the prospect of a democratic Iraq, emerging as an alternative to the present Arab political model, is causing some excitement. A cultural conference at Asilah, Morocco, last month, heard speakers suggest that liberated Iraq had a chance of becoming "the first Arab tiger" while other Arab states remained "nothing but sick cats."

Similar views are expressed in countless debates, some broadcast on satellite television, throughout the Middle East.

All this, of course, may be little more than cynical Arabesques designed to confuse critics and please Washington. The proposed Arab reforms may well prove to be purely cosmetic. After all, several Arab regimes played the same trick in 1991 when, in the wake of the war to liberate Kuwait, they came under U.S. pressure to introduce some reforms.

But as far as the Arab masses are concerned, there is no reason to believe that they hate freedom and, if given a chance, would refuse to choose their governments.

Many Arab countries (including Yemen, Kuwait, Bahrain and Jordan) already enjoy a degree of freedom that could, in time, lead toward democratization. But, being small and peripheral states, none could have a major impact on the Muslim world as a whole.

Iraq is in a different category. A free Iraq is already affecting the political landscape of the Middle East; a democratic Iraq could change the whole Arab world. The goal is worth fighting for.

Despite the current difficulties in Iraq, the United States, Britain and other democratic nations should keep their eyes on the big picture.

__________________
When I jerk off I feel good for about twenty seconds and then WHAM it's right back into suicidal depression

The_Dude

i agree that some of the things listed are true and was a consequence of the iraqi attack.

but........why the hell did bush drag in all the stuff about the wmd's?

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Zeld2.0

Heh I hate to downplay things but a lot of those actions were already long in the process and were there before the war on Iraq was even mainstream.

BTW I would like people to realize that dictators *do* leave power over time - take Kadafi for example, he's ruled for 34 years. Look at the dictators in say Zaire, Haiti, Phillipines, and elsewhere that ruled within the last 20 years - popular uprising or other reasons can easily bring about democracy. It doesn't require the gun unless you want it to.

Anyways I find it ironic though that many many of these nations may end up being what people like to label as being anti-US democracies which would be very funny IMO.

Lebell

umm, just an FYI,

Kadafi (or however his name is spelled this week) is still in power.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

chavos

i would wonder about some of the causation...Quadafi (That Libya Dude With Multiple Westernized Spellings of His Non-Western Name) was sucking up to america long before the invasion of iraq. he's tired of sanctions, his regime was getting weak, etc... I'm wary of the article becuase they glossed over any other causes for this event, and attributed it soley to the invasion of iraq. just tips me off to bias.

i'm glad iraq has a chance at democracy. i think it could have had a better one. i'm glad it is rid of saddam hussien. i think it could have been done better. i'm glad our causualties have been relatively low. i think that with a less resented multinational force, they could have been lower.

US track record on nation building

Country/ Years/ Multilateral or Unilateral/ Democracy after 10 yrs.?

1. Afghanistan 2001-present Multilateral ?
2. Haiti 1994 Multilateral NO
3. Panama 1989 Unilateral YES
4. Grenada 1983 Multilateral YES
5. Cambodia 1970-73 Unilateral NO
6. South Vietnam 1965-73 Unilateral NO
7. Dominican Rep. 1965-66 Unilateral NO
8. Japan 1945-52 Multilateral YES
9. West Germany 1944-49 Multilateral YES
10. Italy 1944-47 Multilateral YES
11. Dominican Rep. 1916-24 Unilateral NO
12. Cuba 1917-22 Unilateral NO
13. Haiti 1915-1919 Unilateral NO
14. Honduras 1924-1925 Unilateral NO
15. Nicaragua 1909-27 Unilateral NO
16. Mexico 1914 Unilateral NO
17. Nicaragua 1909 Unilateral NO
18. Cuba 1906-1909 Unilateral NO

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0115/p09s02-coop.htm
Multilateral efforts succeed 80% of the time, but unilateral efforts only 8.3%.

We're reaping the fruit of not getting the international community behind us...

Mojo_PeiPei

Anyone here old enough to remember when State sponsored Libya Terrorism bombed a discotech(sp?) in Berlin and Reagen fucked up his shit?

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

chavos

barely. But i do remember a few years later when clinton did the same (airstrikes) to afganistan and sudan after state sponsored terror attacks of US forces, the republicans who clapped for reagan said bill was a coward for not using ground troops. meh.